TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.P. Bohra, Member (J)]. Heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, Sr. Advocate, Shri P. Banerjee, Advocate for Appellant and Shri N.K. Mishra, JDR for Respondent. Mr. Bagaria submits that in present case the huge quantity 1,03,665 M.T. of Calcined Alumina manufactured at the appellant s Damanjodi plant transferred to its Angul plant for captive use for manufacture of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Hon ble Tribunal in its own case reported in 2000 (125) E.L.T. 519 (Tribunal) = 2000 (37) RLT 864 (NALCO v. CCE) wherein it was held that the stray sales made to customers who are not similarly situate cannot be considered as a normal factory gate selling price under the main clause of Section 4 and there can be different class of buyers for wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ril, 2002 i.e. after long expiry of the period of limitation of one year and it was accordingly barred by limitation under Section 11A (1) of the 1944 Act. In present case all relevant facts relating to the said inter-unit transfer was fully explained by the applicant and was known to the Central Excise Authorities. There was no fraud or collusion or suppression of facts or misstatement. He, furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LB) = 2000 (39) RLT 501 (Jay Yuhshin Ltd. v. CCE) (CEGAT-LB) (ii) 2002 (141) E.L.T. 521 (Tribunal) = 2002 (49) RLT 520 (Harbans Lal Malhotra Sons Ltd. v. CCE) (CEGAT) (iii) 2003 (58) RLT 95 (Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CCE) (CEGAT) (iv) 2003 (57) RLT 647 (Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. CCE) (CEGAT) (v) 2003 (153) E.L.T. 7 (S.C.) = 2003 (55) RLT 272 (Amco Batteries Limited v. CCE) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was no Revenue involvement of any nature for the appellant. If any high duty was to be paid at the time of clearance from factory plant, it would have taken higher CENVAT credit of the said duty at its Angul plant. The appellant is entitled to take credit of the amount which they are liable to pay as duty. Similar view was expressed in the case of National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. C.C. Ex., BBS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
